Public housing nationwide may be subject to a smoking ban

[jeaniebueller]

.

www.nytimes.com/2015/11/12/nyregion/public-housing-nationwide-may-be-subject-to-smoking-ban.html?_r=0

Smoking would be prohibited in public housing homes nationwide under a proposed federal rule announced on Thursday, a move that would affect nearly one million households and open the latest front in the long-running campaign to curb unwanted exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke.


From Our Advertisers

The ban, by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, would also require that common areas and administrative offices on public housing property be smoke-free.

But the restriction on smoking inside dwellings would pose challenges to overburdened public housing agencies, which could face resistance from some residents resentful of losing control of what they can do in their own homes.

“What I do in my apartment should be my problem, long as I pay my rent,” said Gary Smith, 47, a cigarette in hand as he sat outside the door to a building in the Walt Whitman Houses in the Fort Greene section of Brooklyn.

The impact of the prohibition would be felt most heavily by the New York City Housing Authority, which is known as Nycha and houses more than 400,000 people in about 178,000 apartments. Though it is the largest public housing agency in the country, it has lagged behind many of its smaller counterparts in adopting smoke-free policies.

Since the federal government began to press for smoking bans in public housing in 2009, more than 600 agencies encompassing over 200,000 households have voluntarily barred indoor smoking. In moving to require the prohibitions across the country, federal officials say they are acting to protect residents from secondhand smoke, which can travel through walls and under doors; to reduce the risk of fires; and to lower building maintenance costs.

In New York, some luxury apartment buildings have prohibited smoking and have made a smoke-free environment a selling point. But many public housing agencies, including Nycha, are already struggling to maintain their properties and enforce existing rules. A smoking ban could, at least in the short term, add to those burdens.


“It’s a fraught process, because to do it properly you need community buy-in,” said Sunia Zaterman, executive director of the Council of Large Public Housing Authorities. “To do this successfully, it can’t be a top-down edict, because you want people to comply with the policy.”

On Wednesday, at public housing developments in the Bronx, Brooklyn and Manhattan, the proposal was welcomed by some people, but derided by others as an infringement on personal choices.

Mr. Smith, for one, expressed skepticism that a ban could be enforced. “You don’t know what’s going on in people’s apartment,” he said at the Walt Whitman Houses. He added, “What are they going to do, smell your apartment?”

At the Melrose Houses in the Bronx, Lesli Lino, 25, said that no one in her apartment smoked, but that many residents of her building, including a few on her floor, did.

“It’s horrible,” Ms. Lino said of the odor of smoke that often lingered in elevators and hallways. She said the ban would be a “plus to me.”

Shola Olatoye, the chairwoman and chief executive of Nycha, said, “For us, the major issue is our ability to enforce something like this.” Ms. Olatoye said she had yet to see the proposed rule but expected execution and enforcement to be handled by residents as well as by authority employees.

“It should be resident-led,” she said, adding that the Police Department should not be involved.

Smoking, which is already prohibited in the lobbies and hallways of authority buildings, has already caused friction between tenants and police officers, who have a large presence in many housing projects and are expected to watch out not only for crime but also for violations of authority rules.

Ms. Olatoye noted that in a 2012 residents’ survey conducted by the authority, 14 percent of 1,209 respondents said they smoked, 24 percent said at least one member of their household was a smoker and more than 35 percent said their household included a child with asthma or other respiratory problems.

“There’s clearly a need for addressing this issue head-on,” she said. “The question is, how do we do it?”

Smoking rates in the city have been declining, dropping to 13.9 percent of adults last year from 16.1 in 2013, according to the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. The figure stood at 21.5 percent in 2002, when a city law banning smoking in workplaces, including bars and restaurants, was enacted. But disparities in smoking prevalence persist by education and income levels, health officials say, with higher rates among those having less than a college education and those from lower-income households.

A study by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that a nationwide smoke-free public housing policy would result in annual cost savings of about $153 million, including $94 million in health care, $43 million in reduced costs for painting and cleaning smoke-damaged units, and $16 million in averted fire losses.

In their proposal, federal housing officials said that the surgeon general’s office had concluded that there was no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke and that separating smokers and nonsmokers, building ventilation and cleaning the air could not eliminate exposure. That, officials said, could be accomplished only by eliminating smoking from indoor spaces.

 20 minutes ago
San Francisco has already moved ahead with the banning of electronic cigarettes. From the SF Health
“The argument about secondhand smoke is over,” Julián Castro, the federal housing secretary, said in an interview on Wednesday. “It’s harmful, and we believe it’s important that we have an environment that’s healthy in public housing.”

The Council of Large Public Housing Authorities said smoking bans had become more popular with residents over time. One reason some authorities had already moved to adopt such bans, federal officials said, is that as the number of tenants who smoke has dropped, more people have come to expect smoke-free spaces. That has thrust public housing employees into the middle of disputes over secondhand smoke.

For Nycha, which has 328 developments across the city’s five boroughs, the proposal comes amid persistent budget deficits and declining federal subsidies that have prompted an urgent, and sometimes contentious, effort to increase revenue.


The proposed rule would require housing agencies to prohibit lit cigarettes, cigars and pipes in all living units, indoor common areas, administrative offices and all outdoor areas within 25 feet of housing and administrative office buildings. The rule would not apply initially to electronic cigarettes, but federal officials are seeking input about whether to ban them.

Individual housing authorities can be as restrictive as they want, extending the prohibition to areas near playgrounds, for instance, or making their entire grounds smoke-free, officials said.

The prohibition would be included in tenant leases, and violations would be treated like other nuisance violations, which are usually reported by neighbors or employees and are not meant to result in evictions, Mr. Castro said.

“The purpose is to go smoke-free and to have healthier communities,” he said. “My hope is that housing authorities would work with residents to prepare them for this change so that any kind of punitive measures like evictions are avoided at all costs.”

 
The public will have 60 days to comment on the proposal. Individual housing agencies would have up to 18 months from the effective date of the final rule to adopt and put their smoke-free policies in place after their own periods of public review and meetings with residents.

In the higher reaches of the real estate market, the smoke-free label can carry a premium, according to NYC Smoke-Free at Public Health Solutions, an advocacy and educational group. A recent analysis by StreetEasy, the New York real estate-listings website, for NYC Smoke-Free found that fewer than 4 percent of listed rental apartments were in buildings with smoke-free protections, said Patrick Kwan, the group’s director. But buildings that are smoke-free, the data showed, rented for $1,000 to $1,300 more than comparable units, he said.

“Smoke-free housing is definitely the next frontier in tobacco control efforts, and this is something where we can make an enormous difference for hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers,” he said of the federal proposal.

 
mily Palmer and Eli Rosenberg contributed reporting.

A version of this article appears in print on November 12, 2015, on page A1 of the New York edition

[downtoearth]

We have a no-smoking clause in our rental agreement with our renters, I just assumed that public housing had the same thing b/c in the most visible public housing in our area, there are always people outside smoking, not inside.

But these aren't super urban places where you have to go far from your house to smoke - therefore leaving kids unattended or anything.

[penguingrrl]

That's a really hard call.

On the one hand, I understand the people who feel like they shouldn't be restricted in their own home. And if you are a single parent, home alone with your kids, you can't leave them to go smoke and are therefore being stopped from doing something legal in your own home.

But, as the parent of an asthmatic child and someone who is asthmatic and hyper allergic to cigarette smoke myself I can't in good conscience support smoking in apartment buildings. We had a neighbor in one of our apartments who smoked despite having a lease that said no smoking. Whenever she did, my daughter and I ended up having breathing trouble. A few times albuterol wasn't enough and it triggered enough of an attack that my daughter needed a 3 day round of prednisone.

There's no good answer in terms of keeping smoking a legal activity but protecting the air for those who have trouble breathing.

[jeaniebueller]

I am really torn on this issue. Air quality from smoke, mold, pollution, etc., is a huge issue in public housing. SO I think that trying to find ways to reduce the issue of smoke is important. But I am also worried about this causing a housing crisis for many who live in public housing, given how difficult it is to quit smoking.

[StrawberryBlondie]

I realize there are so many nuances to this, but I don't think smoking should be allowed in apartment buildings, period.

I get the arguments that people should be able to engage in legal activity on their own homes, but apartments can already ban legal activity. This one happens to have public health concerns.

[wambam]

I don't think I have a problem with this. It seems mostly motivated by money - wanting to save on cleaning smokey apartments.

[cinnamoncox0]

While I understand the idea of not being restricted in your own home, my tenants' lease always states no smoking. It's legal to smoke but it's also legal for me to put it in the lease it's forbidden in my house.

I wonder if they could do like hotels and have certain floors be smoking and others non smoking. It'll take awhile to sort that out, but from the article it sounds like they'll have 18 months to get the program going from when they decide to implement it.
From a safety and health stand point I can 100% understand. But from a renter standpoint it's not only public housing where there are rules, so I don't see this as something that's to punish the lower income or any such thing. My tenants have to abide by the rules of the lease if they wish to live here. I'm reasonable and they comply.

[jeaniebueller]

The cynical part of me also thinks this is a way to reduce the number of people who are eligible for public housing--just as the other prohibitions ( like those against convicted felons) have.

[msmerymac]

Nov 12, 2015 12:36:15 GMT -5 cinnamoncox0 said:

While I understand the idea of not being restricted in your own home, my tenants' lease always states no smoking. It's legal to smoke but it's also legal for me to put it in the lease it's forbidden in my house.

I wonder if they could do like hotels and have certain floors be smoking and others non smoking. It'll take awhile to sort that out, but from the article it sounds like they'll have 18 months to get the program going from when they decide to implement it.
From a safety and health stand point I can 100% understand. But from a renter standpoint it's not only public housing where there are rules, so I don't see this as something that's to punish the lower income or any such thing. My tenants have to abide by the rules of the lease if they wish to live here. I'm reasonable and they comply.

I guess I can see a distinction, though, that you are a private landlord who owns the property, versus public housing, which is owned by the government (i.e., everyone contributes to it for the greater good). It's a tricky issue.

[penguingrrl]

Nov 12, 2015 12:36:15 GMT -5 cinnamoncox0 said:

While I understand the idea of not being restricted in your own home, my tenants' lease always states no smoking. It's legal to smoke but it's also legal for me to put it in the lease it's forbidden in my house.

I wonder if they could do like hotels and have certain floors be smoking and others non smoking. It'll take awhile to sort that out, but from the article it sounds like they'll have 18 months to get the program going from when they decide to implement it.
From a safety and health stand point I can 100% understand. But from a renter standpoint it's not only public housing where there are rules, so I don't see this as something that's to punish the lower income or any such thing. My tenants have to abide by the rules of the lease if they wish to live here. I'm reasonable and they comply.

I think one of my issues with it is that for a standard tenant if they don't like a non smoking rule they can choose another apartment/landlord who will allow it. They're free to make a decision for themselves about what rules they can or cannot live with.

Someone who is poor and dependent on public housing doesn't have that luxury. They can't decide they don't like the rules and simply choose to move.

[cinnamoncox0]

Nov 12, 2015 13:04:26 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

Nov 12, 2015 12:36:15 GMT -5 cinnamoncox0 said:

While I understand the idea of not being restricted in your own home, my tenants' lease always states no smoking. It's legal to smoke but it's also legal for me to put it in the lease it's forbidden in my house.

I wonder if they could do like hotels and have certain floors be smoking and others non smoking. It'll take awhile to sort that out, but from the article it sounds like they'll have 18 months to get the program going from when they decide to implement it.
From a safety and health stand point I can 100% understand. But from a renter standpoint it's not only public housing where there are rules, so I don't see this as something that's to punish the lower income or any such thing. My tenants have to abide by the rules of the lease if they wish to live here. I'm reasonable and they comply.

I guess I can see a distinction, though, that you are a private landlord who owns the property, versus public housing, which is owned by the government (i.e., everyone contributes to it for the greater good). It's a tricky issue.

Yeah I can see it being somewhat different, as private vs public but still it isn't like a human right or something to smoke in an apt.
My dad lives in public housing and there's no smoking anywhere in there, apts or common space.
There's a covered gazebo type thing in the parking lot far enough from the door to not smell it walking in, but not so far as to be a complete hassle for the smoking residents to go smoke with cover so if raining etc they're not out in the rain.
My dad doesn't smoke but I see other residents there all the time.
@ $10/pack that is a decent chunk of what most of them receive on SSDI Monthly I would imagine.
I can almost see both sides but cig smoke really can cause harm to others in the building and also burn a place pretty badly if a fire is caused, so it's definitely a for the greater good thing.

[iammalcolmx]

I don't like the smell of smoke but where are the people supposed to go if they already can't smoke in common areas? Will they be giving away the Patch for free or something similar to assist these people in kicking their smoking habits? Since the purpose behind this is to make the community healthier. What other efforts are housing authorities putting in place during their  "Wellness Campaign" ?? Color me skeptical about the real intentions behind this move.

[cattledogkisses]

Am I missing something? I don't see how this would prevent smokers from being able to live in these places. It prohibits smoking indoors, but people can still go outside and smoke, right?

I forget that there are still places that allow smoking indoors sometimes. It's been illegal here for a long time, and everyone just goes outside. People get used to it.

[cinnamoncox0]

Nov 12, 2015 13:13:56 GMT -5 penguingrrl said:

Nov 12, 2015 12:36:15 GMT -5 cinnamoncox0 said:

While I understand the idea of not being restricted in your own home, my tenants' lease always states no smoking. It's legal to smoke but it's also legal for me to put it in the lease it's forbidden in my house.

I wonder if they could do like hotels and have certain floors be smoking and others non smoking. It'll take awhile to sort that out, but from the article it sounds like they'll have 18 months to get the program going from when they decide to implement it.
From a safety and health stand point I can 100% understand. But from a renter standpoint it's not only public housing where there are rules, so I don't see this as something that's to punish the lower income or any such thing. My tenants have to abide by the rules of the lease if they wish to live here. I'm reasonable and they comply.

I think one of my issues with it is that for a standard tenant if they don't like a non smoking rule they can choose another apartment/landlord who will allow it. They're free to make a decision for themselves about what rules they can or cannot live with.

Someone who is poor and dependent on public housing doesn't have that luxury. They can't decide they don't like the rules and simply choose to move.

I do understand that and know it's not an easy situation where everyone "wins" or whatever.
But I have been a real estate agent for many years and honestly ive not seen any private rentals allow smoking since I don't even know when. No smoking is pretty universal in the renting arena, at least where I am near Boston. Of course I have no idea what goes on elsewhere.
So I don't think my tenants could've just easily found a smoking apt. It would be very difficult to find that around here.
More for the damage to apt than health most likely though. And to cut down on complaints from other tenants who smell it from their units.

[iammalcolmx]

Nov 12, 2015 13:16:33 GMT -5 cinnamoncox0 said:

Nov 12, 2015 13:04:26 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

I guess I can see a distinction, though, that you are a private landlord who owns the property, versus public housing, which is owned by the government (i.e., everyone contributes to it for the greater good). It's a tricky issue.

Yeah I can see it being somewhat different, as private vs public but still it isn't like a human right or something to smoke in an apt.
My dad lives in public housing and there's no smoking anywhere in there, apts or common space.
There's a covered gazebo type thing in the parking lot far enough from the door to not smell it walking in, but not so far as to be a complete hassle for the smoking residents to go smoke with cover so if raining etc they're not out in the rain.
My dad doesn't smoke but I see other residents there all the time.
@ $10/pack that is a decent chunk of what most of them receive on SSDI Monthly I would imagine.
I can almost see both sides but cig smoke really can cause harm to others in the building and also burn a place pretty badly if a fire is caused, so it's definitely a for the greater good thing.

Honestly the biggest concern , regarding fires, needs to be people using their stoves as heaters in the winter. Additionally the article makes it seem as if these people will not have your Gazebo-like auction.

[iammalcolmx]

Nov 12, 2015 13:21:47 GMT -5 cattledogkisses said:

Am I missing something? I don't see how this would prevent smokers from being able to live in these places. It prohibits smoking indoors, but people can still go outside and smoke, right?

I forget that there are still places that allow smoking indoors sometimes. It's been illegal here for a long time, and everyone just goes outside. People get used to it.

They have to leave the property though.

[cattledogkisses]

Nov 12, 2015 13:23:42 GMT -5 iammalcolmx said:

Nov 12, 2015 13:21:47 GMT -5 cattledogkisses said:

Am I missing something? I don't see how this would prevent smokers from being able to live in these places. It prohibits smoking indoors, but people can still go outside and smoke, right?

I forget that there are still places that allow smoking indoors sometimes. It's been illegal here for a long time, and everyone just goes outside. People get used to it.

They have to leave the property though.

Ah, ok. Perhaps they need a designated outdoor smoking area. Or to simply prohibit it within x number of feet from the building entrance, which is what most places around here do. 

[penguingrrl]

Nov 12, 2015 13:21:35 GMT -5 cinnamoncox0 said:

Nov 12, 2015 13:13:56 GMT -5 penguingrrl said:

I think one of my issues with it is that for a standard tenant if they don't like a non smoking rule they can choose another apartment/landlord who will allow it. They're free to make a decision for themselves about what rules they can or cannot live with.

Someone who is poor and dependent on public housing doesn't have that luxury. They can't decide they don't like the rules and simply choose to move.

I do understand that and know it's not an easy situation where everyone "wins" or whatever.
But I have been a real estate agent for many years and honestly ive not seen any private rentals allow smoking since I don't even know when. No smoking is pretty universal in the renting arena, at least where I am near Boston. Of course I have no idea what goes on elsewhere.
So I don't think my tenants could've just easily found a smoking apt. It would be very difficult to find that around here.
More for the damage to apt than health most likely though. And to cut down on complaints from other tenants who smell it from their units.

I'm quite supportive of the free market all but banning it. I'm not okay with the government legally preventing poor people from a behavior they refuse to all out ban.

I would also be supportive of smoking being illegal.

[cinnamoncox0]

Nov 12, 2015 13:23:23 GMT -5 iammalcolmx said:

Nov 12, 2015 13:16:33 GMT -5 cinnamoncox0 said:

Yeah I can see it being somewhat different, as private vs public but still it isn't like a human right or something to smoke in an apt.
My dad lives in public housing and there's no smoking anywhere in there, apts or common space.
There's a covered gazebo type thing in the parking lot far enough from the door to not smell it walking in, but not so far as to be a complete hassle for the smoking residents to go smoke with cover so if raining etc they're not out in the rain.
My dad doesn't smoke but I see other residents there all the time.
@ $10/pack that is a decent chunk of what most of them receive on SSDI Monthly I would imagine.
I can almost see both sides but cig smoke really can cause harm to others in the building and also burn a place pretty badly if a fire is caused, so it's definitely a for the greater good thing.

Honestly the biggest concern , regarding fires, needs to be people using their stoves as heaters in the winter. Additionally the article makes it seem as if these people will not have your Gazebo-like auction.

I think it's been a non smoking building so long now that they ironed these things out awhile ago (the gazebo type thing I mean). So maybe something similar could be in the works since the article said they would have 18 months to get it all in compliance, so maybe they could have a similar area. I don't know what the answer is I just know it's been like this for long long time here and somehow they've worked it out.
As for the stove heaters omg yes more people need heating assistance for sure. But in the bldg my dads in (not to harp on that one complex but its really the only one I know someone close to me in) comes with heat.
In HS I knew sisters who lived together their mom paid their rent but that's it and they used the stove for heat it was my first experience with that and it was horrible thinking of how many people have to resort to that.
There are some programs around here to help but I'm sure it's not enough, nothing is ever enough it seems. (Not sarcasm I'm serious, everything is costing families too much $ and not enough help to go around)

[cattledogkisses]

Nov 12, 2015 13:29:36 GMT -5 Dig Ophelia said:

While I absolutely loathe cigarettes and cigars, I don't know how much I actually agree with this. I don't like adults being told that they can't do legal things inside their own homes, even renters. Everyone's already touched on why I'm iffy about this (private vs public housing).

The reason I'm ok with it, provided that there are accommodations made for people to be able to smoke outdoors, is that smoking in an apartment building affects the health of the other tenants in the building, as well as the next tenants who will move in when the smoker moves out. The dangers of second and third-hand smoke are well-documented. I'm ok with restricting behavior that negatively affects the health and safety of others. 

[StrawberryBlondie]

Does public housing typically allow pets?

I know its really different but it could color my opinion a little.

[tacosforlife]

The article says that in a survey of public housing residents, 35 percent said their household includes a child with asthma or other respiratory problems. That is the biggest thing that persuades me to supporting a ban.

I am fine with some sort of compromise that establishes a smokers' pavilion or allows it outside but not within X feet of an entrance. Or depending on the setup, leaving the property may not be a big burden - the public housing complex near where I lived in DC, it was like 20 feet from the building entrance to the city sidewalk.

But if I have to balance an adult's right to smoke indoors with an asthmatic child's right to a healthy living environment, I'm going to side with the child.

[AllieHound]

I'm fine with banning smoking indoors. Other tenant's rights to to breathe quality air trumps a smoker's right to smoke indoors.

I don't support banning it on the property, though. Make a designated area, or say not within 15 feet of the building, but don't make people go off property.

[tacosforlife]

Straight from the article:

The proposed rule would require housing agencies to prohibit lit cigarettes, cigars and pipes in all living units, indoor common areas, administrative offices and all outdoor areas within 25 feet of housing and administrative office buildings. The rule would not apply initially to electronic cigarettes, but federal officials are seeking input about whether to ban them.

So it sounds like people could still smoke on the property, as long as they are more than 25 feet from the building.

[jeaniebueller]

Nov 12, 2015 13:56:02 GMT -5 tacosforlife said:

The article says that in a survey of public housing residents, 35 percent said their household includes a child with asthma or other respiratory problems. That is the biggest thing that persuades me to supporting a ban.

I am fine with some sort of compromise that establishes a smokers' pavilion or allows it outside but not within X feet of an entrance. Or depending on the setup, leaving the property may not be a big burden - the public housing complex near where I lived in DC, it was like 20 feet from the building entrance to the city sidewalk.

But if I have to balance an adult's right to smoke indoors with an asthmatic child's right to a healthy living environment, I'm going to side with the child.

I watched a special (maybe on HBO?) about public housing in NYC and how much of it was just permeated with mold. It was really heartbreaking and depressing. If they want to ban smoking, fine, but they had better start addressing the other causes of respiratory issues as well.

[tacosforlife]

Nov 12, 2015 14:05:29 GMT -5 jeaniebueller said:

Nov 12, 2015 13:56:02 GMT -5 tacosforlife said:

The article says that in a survey of public housing residents, 35 percent said their household includes a child with asthma or other respiratory problems. That is the biggest thing that persuades me to supporting a ban.

I am fine with some sort of compromise that establishes a smokers' pavilion or allows it outside but not within X feet of an entrance. Or depending on the setup, leaving the property may not be a big burden - the public housing complex near where I lived in DC, it was like 20 feet from the building entrance to the city sidewalk.

But if I have to balance an adult's right to smoke indoors with an asthmatic child's right to a healthy living environment, I'm going to side with the child.

I watched a special (maybe on HBO?) about public housing in NYC and how much of it was just permeated with mold. It was really heartbreaking and depressing. If they want to ban smoking, fine, but they had better start addressing the other causes of respiratory issues as well.

I absolutely agree.

My hope is that this is the first step in improving conditions. While enforcement may be tricky, a smoking ban is theoretically very cheap because it doesn't require lots of work, relocating people in affected units, and other issues that mold remediation involves. But yes, the conditions should be safe and healthy for everyone.

[sushi]

I'm with tacos on this. It's between protecting children vs protecting adult rights. And I'll choose the children who have no other choice.

But, it makes me feel uncomfortable, as it seems yet another way to shit on the poor. And I haaaate smoke.

I guess there's precedent for government housing in that military dorms also ban smoking. Of course it's not the same, but it's the closest situation I could think of.

[YeahSure]

I believe that smoking is legal within your own unit in apartment buildings, in San Francisco anyway, as long as the door is closed. If this were not the case, I wouldn't have a problem this proposed ban, and think that across the board it's probably a lovely idea. But only banning it in public housing comes across to me as another dagger in the war against the poor. As for the high amount of kids with asthma, look at not only the causes within the household (mold, leads, etc), but also the fact that often public housing is located in higher pollution areas (near highways or old shipyards, etc).

[tacosforlife]

Nov 12, 2015 14:29:48 GMT -5 YeahSure said:

I believe that smoking is legal within your own unit in apartment buildings, in San Francisco anyway, as long as the door is closed. If this were not the case, I wouldn't have a problem this proposed ban, and think that across the board it's probably a lovely idea. But only banning it in public housing comes across to me as another dagger in the war against the poor. As for the high amount of kids with asthma, look at not only the causes within the household (mold, leads, etc), but also the fact that often public housing is located in higher pollution areas (near highways or old shipyards, etc).

There's sort of two issues here: first, the federal government doesn't have authority to ban smoking in all apartment buildings across the country. Local governments likely could do so, just as they can set minimum habitability standards for rental properties. So doing it only in public housing isn't just because it's a war on the poor, but it's because they only have authority to ban it there.

But second, there is an argument to be made that not banning smoking indoors in public housing is also a form of war on poor children. All these children with respiratory ailments have no choice about where to live. A mother may want to protect her asthmatic child by living in a smoking building, but if the only public housing available allows smoking, then she is faced with a terrible choice - house her child in an unsafe environment or don't use public housing. Given that smoking outside is a much simpler solution than relocating those who are harmed by living in a building with smoking, I understand the regulation.

This of course is not to say that the other causes for respiratory ailments should not be investigated and remedied. They should. But prohibiting smoking indoors is a relatively simple fix.

[fumbalina]

I hate smoke, but I am still against this. I grew up with respiratory problems in a household with two chain smokers as well.

A lot of times smoking is one of the few networking opportunities for the poor. I do not think that means smoking I'd good for you, but anyone that has looked for a job should know the power of a good network.

It is also a stimulant and while we expect the poor to "get a second job," in order to make it, we need to understand that comes with health consequences.

I would rather increase the minimum wage and access to quality health care, but as a realist I know we are not close to making either of those things a true priority. People feel like a poor person asking for a regular schedule is an undue burdan, so I do not see how we can convince the masses that we need to supply a liveable wage or care for chronic conditions which are prevalent in those in poverty.